Do candidates help or hinder diplomacy?

The press is asking today about the effect of the Republican presidential candidates’ statements on foreign affairs.  One journalist puts it this way:

I’m trying to put together a quick story today on how the somewhat bellicose tone on foreign policy in the GOP debates is playing overseas – Turkey’s government put out a statement today denouncing Rick Perry, for instance, for saying Turkey is a country ruled “by what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists.”

There’s also been a lot of tough talk on China and Iran.

…How meaningful this is – does it matter that other countries get upset, do such statements have long-term implications, etc.

I think the general reaction among foreign policy analysts is that this election is about domestic issues, and it shows.  Rick Perry’s remark about Turkey is only the latest—and maybe the most egregious—in a series of uninformed statements on international issues, some clearly made to pander to domestic campaign donors (Palestinians don’t exist, all the people in the West Bank and Gaza are Israelis, etc).  No one with any brain matter would perceive the government in Turkey as Islamic terrorists, and they are not.

Some of this display of ignorance is plainly so ridiculous that it causes ripples but no permanent damage.  I’d put the Perry remark about Turkey in that category.  Other statements are more damaging:  if Palestinians don’t exist, there is no need for a two-state solution, which casts doubt on the American commitment to that outcome.  I would have a hard time believing that either Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum is committed to a two-state solution after their statements on the Palestinians, who surely would find it even harder to believe.

The belligerence towards Iran risks boxing the United States into war before it has exhausted diplomatic means, including ratcheting up the sanctions.  While it is hard to believe that Americans would be happy to engage in another Middle East war, that is clearly what most of the Republican candidates (exception:  Ron Paul) are pressing for.  They know Obama will resist, so it is a good game:  if he doesn’t destroy Iran’s nuclear installations, they can say he looks weak.  If he does, they’ll have to line up to salute, as they have on the killing of Osama bin Laden, but that won’t help Obama much if the consequences are negative for the United States.

On China, I imagine that Beijing has gotten so used to the bashing that there is little these candidates can say that will surprise them.  I know from my experience abroad as a U.S. diplomat that it can be useful to show that there is a domestic U.S. constituency to which our diplomacy has to be responsive.  The question is when does it become counter-productive, hardening the adversary and exciting his own domestic constituency on the other side of the argument?  There really is no problem in candidates saying that they are concerned about American jobs and see unfair Chinese competition (exchange rate manipulation, working conditions) as part of the problem.  It is when they start specifying remedies that won’t work or will cause an effect opposite to what is intended that things get dicey.  Our relationship with China, which holds an inordinate amount of U.S. debt, is a delicate one.  Indelicate statements risk doing some real harm.

My bottom line:  sometimes they help, sometimes they hinder.  But ignorance really never shows well.